Imperia Online International

all the IO admins talk about making the game more realistic.

i don't want like other people to put in the game units like priest or dark wizards or biologycal warfare like i :)) read in one of the post...instead i like you to answer me this simple 2 questions:

why after a siege a fortress and the building within it are not destroyed?
         ----after a siege the fortress is destroyed only to 70% of it's full strenght and if it's not repaired and it's attacked again it doesn't suffer any more damage----

why is it a rule that a horseman doesnt survive after a battle?
         ----maybe in the battle just the horse gets killed... or just the horseman.... who knows-----

why after a pillage the villagers don't go back to work?
       
if i attack with and army of 10 000 guardians and 100 trebuchetes.....( you need 10000 men to handle 100 trebuchetes) the guardians handle the siege weapons or fight the defending army?... and if the fight the defending army who handles the siege weapons?.... and don;t give me that ..... that the siege weapons are handled by the 75 villagers used to uild it coz then you wouldn't have to bring 100 guardians for each trebuchete

why do i need wood to hire swordsmen and horsemen? (well... the horsemen need spears but i don't think the need that much wood)

why if i attack a boxed in province i lose only morale and not army to?... do the villagers in the province i just pass throu make fun of my army and so i lose morale? :))

why if i siege a defensles province..... there's only one man putting up a fight?... in 200 000 villagers....if you can call them villagers when they are 200k.... there's only one man?.... the rest are wemen?... and so do you really think that the men ...wich are all soldiers... would have sex with a woman that worked all her life in a stone quary?... or a iron mine? :)).... or the medicine is just a cover for human cloning :))... or in-vitro insemination...

hhahaha....

don't take this as an offense...i'm just pointing out that you have other things to resolve than soldiers carrying capacity and .. so don;t tell us you;r trying to make the game more realistic.....

p.s: and what is the simple porpouse of the alliance if i can't send reinforcements to my allies?.....coz if x is attaket by y and i attack y so that my army arives at his gates exactly when his army arives from x.... is like i'm attaking x but without the honor loss :) and x will never obtaing that money back coz he can't attack and ally :)

omg how many questions can you get in one post *freak* Ok if horseman is killed then his horse would run away and if horse killed horseman probally stuck under it!!! *hahaha* *hahaha* *hahaha*
After being raped raped and pillaged going back to work is not first thing on villagers mind need's there ruler to kick there arses and tell them togo back to work!!! :evil4: :evil4:
The armys to seige weapon's make's sence as it would be stupid if 1k light soldgiers for e'g could take out a lvl 7 fort!! And you need villager's to move and operate them!!! *freak*
You need more wood to forge there armour and the horse's shoe's it take's alot of wood to get a fire that hot  *crazy**crazy*
Don't know why there's 1 spearman. But in world war 2 women made all the weapon's and did the hard labour!! And any soldgier was happy to have sex with them!! so ans deffinatley to last question what man would want to have sex with women who work in mines!! The answer is a soldgier!! *hahaha* *hahaha* *hahaha*

Why your nickname is cicson?

Woot I love ur post Cicson!

it's what some of my friends call me... it's a combination of 2 nicknames :)

ok ..that makes sense...thanks.... but what about the other questions?...the one about destroying fortreses and buildings and really helping your allyes


and here's another question:

when i pillage and the description of the pillage says that i enslave the villagers..... why doesn't my population grow with the number of villagers enslaved?

(http://www.luckytree.com.au/images/Wooden%20horse.jpg)

because you sell the villagers enslaved for money *freak*
about the fact with siege machines...somebody has to help moving the siege weapons, while in fighting they don't have to move siege weapons *pardon*
And you can't help an ally with army, because in that way there would be a cheating paradise *xxx*

Properly... don't you think your nickname had to be more realistic?  *hahaha*

*hahaha* *hahaha* *hahaha* *hahaha* *hahaha*

you got aproblem with my nickname?...what about yours?....why don't you think my nickname isn't realistic?..... it's just a nickname tho..it doesn't have to be realistic

You got it! Mine is not realistic... is just my name.   *pardon*

But anyway, this is a game and is impossible to be 100% realistic and playable in the same time. Some things have to be added or removed to make it playable. You ask to many questions (why, why, why...) without thinking that there are some technical reasons behind them. I don't want to take them one by one and analyze, because the post will go too long. If you will want it, i can show you that some of the answers are just a question of taste (as your nickname) and the rest are technical.

People, this is not arpg area... *freak* bla,bla,bla,bla,bla,bla.......

yeah... well....still i don't understand what bothers you about my nickname and i sincerly don't give a .....

but i think you're just plain stupid and didn't understand what the topic is all about.... i don't want those things i asked about to be changed.... i just want to make the peeople in IO management that we arn't idiots and they shouldn't feed us crap like "we-re removeing some featurese because we're trying to make the game more realistic"
 the game will never be realistic because is jsut a game....
and you'll never make something realistic by making it featureless
and please..... don't be a dumb redneck and judge or say anithing about someone elses name or nickname coz francly.... reni sounds g_y... i'd beat my parrents if they'd named me that

dude... you have difficulties getting irony...  *hahaha*

Looking that you still didn't understood why i mentioned your nickname, i'm explaining it to you in a fair way. Your nickname is your choice. You name yourself with that, and you does not need to have an explanation at all. The others call you with your nickname and they never ask you why you choose that or to give explanation about. What i did to you, is the same with what you did with game owners (creators). You asked for reasons that don't exist (or at least explanation don't exist) or for future improvements that can't be completed without creating mess somewhere else.
I understand pretty well what you want to say. And i'm saying that there is no logic behind that. A game can't be real life, because we'll not call it a game any more. Number of features has nothing to do with entertainment. If you have doubts, look at chess for example.

Look at your improvements:
Firstly why they should? Secondly, this will make army save not possible anymore.

Of course is better like it is. If the fortress effect will be removed after it is destroyed, then it will be possible prosecute someone to death.

Why not? The rule is like this. If you want a stupid explanation i can give you one: The horseman can't walk without his horse and he want to come back, but he dies during the trip.  *pardon*

because they are lazy...  *hahaha*
Do you want for explanation? Ok, because they are afraid from the attacker. Only when you go there, and tell them to come back and work again, they believe you as a governor.

This rule is good, because you should not have the possibility to send 1000 soldiers and 25k sieges minimizing your looses. The opposite is also bad, because will ask you to have a huge army just to take a mere fortress.

Explanation?
The soldiers are needed to help during the transport. To fight they don't need them, because those 75 peasants are already trained for that function. But those 75 peasants can't transport a trebuche alone...  *pardon*

How do you know how much wood is needed? Are you just looking in other games... and you think they are realistic? *hahaha*

Was properly this question who gave me the idea to ask you about your nickname. The question is totally senseless. The game owners choose this way to give you the possibility to defend. You are asking, why is like this... what to say... Do you want me to ask you again you you choose your nickname again?  *freak*

This is another senseless question. Game designers decided this and the right answer to your question is again like the previous one.
Anyway, if you want an explanation, let's say that population does not have weapons and they are not even inside fortress where only the army and treasury can stay...  *pardon*


P.S.
You should try not to offend when you don't understand something, because is not fair...  *freak*

:D

i think you tryed to offend me first.but anyway..... you still didin't understand what i was trying to say..... ireally didn't want answers those questions

i wanted to POINT OUT some of the games basic features that are not realistic at all and the admins changed things that shouldn't have changed

you say i don;t understand irony.... but you-re the first you didn't understand my cinism and sarcasm.... and about my nickname.... i didn't call myself cicson.... others did..... :))... that's your big problem..... i just got used to the ideea of beeing called cicson and i use it on the net... can u comprehend that?:)
really... can you?:)

lines like "you don`t understand irony" or "sarcasm" are so silly, cause usually, they don`t mean anything. that one with misunderstood cynicism was even funnier

I'd only like to comment something I predicted in another topic, about market prices...they did drop even further than they were...only iron is keeping just above basic price... *gamer* (in r38 that is)

I think this IO "realistic" doesn't mean realistic in real life cause this is a game, but realistic in logical instead. If you bother about this realistic and make a lot of questions about REAL realistic in this game, then how many programmers would be needed to make this game as realistic as real life cause human mind is so complex.

About Carrying Capacity, i think that would be make the game fair enough to play.
i.e
If you have about 10 million amount of gold in your province, then someone in your 5x range bigger than you was attacking you and rob all your gold, what's your opinion about this? fair? on unfair?
If the attacker just in your 2x range and has an equal point with you, it's a fair battle but still annoying cause you lost all your gold and some armies.

Come on, are you serious?

Sorry to bother... i see i lost my time... regards!

I think the carrying capacity rule is detrimental to the enjoyment of the game. Instead of gaining resources from battles it will force people to rely more on their internal ecomomy - basically turning everyone into farmers.

Aside from the reality issues (has anyone heard of a cart?), the capacity rule forces us to create units far in excess of those required to win a battle just to ensure that a worthwile amount of resources are taken.

No Mihai... they have full meaning. Asking on purpose a silly question simply to create a parallel with one (or many) previous silly question(s) is irony. Wooden horse was another good irony to respond to his questions. If somebody is unable to understand it then we must help him.  *pardon*

While was difficult to find where was sarcasm or brrrr... cynicism  *xxx* in his post. Ok, there were some jokes, and thats all, but the questions (or proposals) in itself were silly.

nope, is like a childish dispute i.e, "i am smart".. "no, i am smarter"

*freak* *hihi* *hihi* *hihi* *hihi* i am smarter. *freak* *freak*

Morons :hmmm: .......... *suicide*

Did you read the posts, or you are writing just a "cliche" ?  *xxx*

ofc i read them, as i said children arguing with fancy words

I don't think my general will order his men to abandon war booty that they cannot carry. I believe he will find as many carts as he can from the enemy side to carry them back. This is reasonable.

Can you quote it in message, and give an explanation what's wrong? I thought i gave the explanation about my sentence about "irony"...  :rant:

oki, if u really have difficulties to understand:






i`m lazy, i won`t quote the whole topic

Whats wrong there?  *xxx*

the way you 2 argued

just smth to say inhere..cause is a game doesnt mean to be based on real(istic) chess isnt. bingoo isnt.starcraft isnt.
all are rational-logical.but not realistic.

Don't delude me Mihai! I hope you just had not enough patience to read the whole thread! I close my thread here.

P.S.
Decimus message tells everything i wanted to tell with a small irony that you are condemning.

that`s ur impression. my impression was that ur whole argument was childish and a little snobish. i`m condemning both ur attitudes, who were silly, especially when you started to say very smart thing like "you don`t understand my irony, sarcasm" whatever.

btw, the topic probably started because the carrying capacity was justified by realism, so, you kind of missed the point here.

 

1. I didn't start the thread
2. I didn't miss carrying capacity feature. If one of admins gave an explanation as a "more realistic", that was just his way to notify this new feature. That's all. What was the need to write xx lines message with new proposals (as a kind of irony), when you have difficulties to get it when is against you?
3. I wrote 3-4 messages kidding a little bit with his proposals (and that was deserved, because proposals and their justification were really questionable, if not ridiculous)
4. If you ask me many times "whats wrong with my nickname", without understanding that i wanted to tell properly that: "that nothing is wrong", then i feel to give you a detailed explanation what you are missing. Frankly speaking everyone, besides him, understood what i was talking about. So it was not a smart as* message.
5. Your messages generally are like this (a little bit ironic). I even told you that once, so you are not the one who can condemn that way of speaking. That is not a problem for me, if you don't exaggerate (i didn't in this thread, and that's why i'm surprised with your message).

Anyway... that's not a problem.
Regards!

for 1+2, ask the one who posted. the silly part, i tell you for the 3rd time, since, as in many occasions, you have problems understanding what others have written, is when you both started to brame each other for not understanding the so-called ironies or sarcasm. and you were somehow close to flaming with ur first post.

Quote it

Thats how you like to understand it.

P.S.
If this is the way to counter a small irony, then ok... fair enough. ;)

i won`t quote again you previous posts, you can read it for yourself, if you forgot what have you asked.

I'm creating the impression that is you who have difficulties understand what the others are talking about. Anyway... this is going to be boring for the rest of the players...

sure, coming from someone who asked the same question for 3 times in the last hours, hmm, perceptive

Why, you did differently? You stated the same sentence without arguments 3 times in a row... so what do you expect?

see, again acting silly :D it was obvious what i meant, but well, not for you. is useless to explain smth to you, you usually get a point when contradicting with someone after the 10th repeating

dude, this is tautology... read your messages and compare them with mines.
You have no exclusivity in using sentences like this: it was obvious what i meant, but well, not for you. What is this? Is not the same irony that you criticized so heavily?  *hahaha* *hahaha*

i haven`t criticized the irony (yeah, i know, 4th time, 6th left). and in this case, my previous post was not an irony, more like a description

Irony has always to be something... question, description, answer... whatever. That sentence remains irony. And looking that you don't have exclusivity of it, you also have no right to criticize it.

 *hahaha* read what other people wrote before you write

of course i did... and you?  I think you don't even read yours... *hahaha*

well, at least, i understand what i read, unlike you.

example of your abilities 
i`ll talk again with you when you become smarter (or at least, able to read)

*freak* why?  *freak*

yes, you do, but you like to give advices which you don't like to apply for yourself.

Look at this sentence:
it was obvious what i meant, but well, not for you.
Are you just acting properly what you are criticizing, because that was properly a description of type "you don't understand my irony, because i'm smarter and/or you are idiot"
I did properly that, and you quoted my message as childish. You did the same, but now is not childish?  *xxx* Are you acting as a smarter one?  *freak*

If you change all the time your opinion, is not my fault. You should be more coherent with your messages.

And generally when you read other people, you are far from helpful. The only thing you do is "critics" and "advices". Thx man... i don't need them. At least, not from one, who don't apply them at himself first.

Come on we all know from forrum k.mahi like's an arguement!! Why are you biting and playing into his hands!! No responce would be better!! *crazy*

The problem is i like the same  *freak*

 *hahaha* *hahaha* *hahaha* *hahaha* I thought so!!!

ya you 2 are like really bad spammers...could you at least divide message at 3 different posts  *freak*

*hahaha* *hahaha* *hahaha* *hahaha*

and made reni even more stuned that he already is? 

nah... its the same  *freak*

so why you still posting in this "whole thread" hehehe  *offtopic*

I never keep my promises  *freak*

lol  *hihi* *hihi*

I see..  :evil4: spank u!